/m/nba

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I still think there are reasons to be optimistic about Rubio's shooting. For one, he has shown improvement at his midrange game since he came into the league. Also, he is a great FT shooter, so his touch is fine, he just needs to translate that into his shooting/finishing elsewhere, which probably entails moving away from his weird set shots and using a more natural jumper motion. Additionally, it is easier to go from terrible to ok than good to great, at least in theory. Finally, he is still young and relatively inexperienced in the NBA; there is certainly projectability left in his game.

I think Rubio will end up like Kidd where he becomes a good three point shooter, but will continue struggle at scoring from other areas. But just adding three point shooting to Rubio's passing, defense and rebounding would make him a really good player. Of course Kidd didn't start making threes consistently until he was in his 30's but that didn't stop him from getting to the finals before that. Kidd had one year where he 3pt% was higher than his 2pt%, I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened to Rubio at some point, as a rookie they weren't far off.

[2397] agreed, a lot of intrigues next year all over too, most of the bad teams this side of the Bobcats will be at least somewhat intriguing.

[2396][2399] yeah, I think given that he's clearly an NBA athlete and can shoot free throws well, there's just no way he can remain THIS bad shooting, it has to go up.. also, RAPM totally love his defense, it was along with Conley the best PG defense around. so he doesn't need to really be great at shooting, he just needs to be not terrible. there's plenty of guys on the Wolfs that can finish (at least when healthy.) their question is really if they can run a defense. (and more importantly, stay healthy)

[2400] I highly doubt they'll start Delfino at his age coming off a foot injury. I guess maybe they run a Henson / Sanders / Ilyasova front court ? and pray that Sander is enough to cover for faster wings blowing by whoever's pretending to play 3. it's not like Delfino can keep up with those guys either. though I guess Henson and Sanders together present some issues. they only played together about 1/8 th of the time Henson was on the floor.

I worry that Sanders and Henson (though I like both) aren't super complementary... which may lessen their individual productivities, time together (and thus time on the court in total), and trade value.

I don't have much time for college hoops, so I don't know how Henson did at UNC, but based on the little I saw of him last year, it seems he'll make his money in the NBA more as a solid defensive player. He seemed to flash a potentially useful hook shot, which is a nice move for a guy with his length, but otherwise looked rather unrefined on offense. Do I have him him gauged about right? Is there potentially more offense there? Even if he turns out to be a dud -- probably more likely than not -- the Bucks should be giving their parade of non-lottery first-rounders a chance to fail, as opposed to trading them in mid-season pushes for the eight seed. But that starts to tread into the ownership interference that Zach Lowe has mentioned before, and that's something I don't really have a handle on.

[2396][2399] yeah, I think given that he's clearly an NBA athlete and can shoot free throws well, there's just no way he can remain THIS bad shooting, it has to go up.. also, RAPM totally love his defense, it was along with Conley the best PG defense around. so he doesn't need to really be great at shooting, he just needs to be not terrible. there's plenty of guys on the Wolfs that can finish (at least when healthy.) their question is really if they can run a defense. (and more importantly, stay healthy)

Definitely squares with my experience watching him. He is relatively quick, anticipates as well as one would expect, and has freakish alien arms that deflect everything. They did it less last year off the injury, but he guarded 2's well as a rookie (recall he was injured closing out on Kobe). That versatility is one reason they could stand to deal with Martin's defense. You're right that health is THE key, and the track record does not inspire confidence.

The thing that I missed about Henson during the season is that he had a top 20 rebound rate in all the league. Solid defense + great rebounding is enough to be a regular regardless of his offense. It is fair to speculate on fit next to Sanders, though.

Another guy Rubio might be able to emulate as a scorer is Chauncey Billups, Rubio's ability to get to the line is probably closer to Billups than Kidd. Billups like Kidd and Rubio also had some really rough shooting numbers at the start of his career (first three years of FG%: .374, .386, .337). As he aged became better at 3 point shooting and getting to the line, but was never really that good at scoring anywhere else. He's another guy was had seasons where he shot better on three point shots than 2's. The key here is again improving his 3 point shot, where he's at least shown potential.

so [Rubio] doesn't need to really be great at shooting, he just needs to be not terrible. there's plenty of guys on the Wolfs that can finish (at least when healthy.)

I think the question is, how much can he be an elite playmaker while not being a scoring threat? Certainly, Kidd* is kind of the model there. On the other hand, Kidd is a once-in-a-generation talent. On the gripping hand, it's been a generation since Kidd.

as a Tar Heel fanboy who has already bigupped Henson in this thread, let me say: the sexy/dangerous thing about him is that he can do lots of offensive things, but he may never get better at those things than reaching the level of "just good enough at #### he shouldn't be doing so that he tries said #### he shouldn't be doing more often than a less skilled guy".

between the little hooks/half hooks, and his midrange jumper, though, I'm pretty high on his offensive potential. if you told me he could shoot 60% from the line, I'd like him more!

he can do lots of offensive things, but he may never get better at those things than reaching the level of "just good enough at #### he shouldn't be doing so that he tries said #### he shouldn't be doing more often than a less skilled guy".

Really good (not superstar, but really good) NBA players seem to identify a handful of offensive moves and hone those skills.

2412--yup, my thinking too...and "really good" is Henson's upside, so he needs to focus and simplify....very fun guy to watch, also, which is part of why I root for him: kinda like a gangly shotblocking puppy, maybe a giant schnauzer or something? dunno....

• The Thunder will pay Andre Roberson, the 26th pick in the draft, only 80 percent of his rookie scale amount, an alleged cheapskate move that will save them about $185,000 this season — at least when compared with the full scale amount.

• The league's Board of Governors, in a bizarre and controversial turnaround, voted in Las Vegas during Summer League to repay the Thunder part of the difference between what Kevin Durant would have earned under the old collective bargaining agreement and what he actually earns now. Durant signed his five-year maximum extension under the old CBA, but it didn't take effect until after the unbearable lockout. In one of many bits of chaotic last-minute wrangling, the players' union, with help from several agents, convinced the league that Durant should receive the "new" max salary instead of the older (lower) one, per several sources familiar with the process. Those sources disagree over whether the Thunder mounted a protest at the time, but some say the Thunder did so very quickly and have continued agitating since. The difference amounts to about $3 million per season, or about $15 million over the life of Durant's megadeal. The league is repaying a portion of that $15 million, a signal that at least a majority of team owners — and perhaps the league office — agree they screwed the Thunder on that magical Thanksgiving weekend in which the lockout ended and basketball began again.

The Durant Payback (which sounds like a Bourne movie title) has resulted in grumblings at various volume levels across the NBA, and a fun bit of speculation. The grumbling, straight-up angry in some places and more playful in others, centers on the idea that David Stern's little pet in itty-bitty OKC received an unfair bit of special treatment — that the relationship between Stern and Clay Bennett, that old Seattle turncoat, is a bit too comfy.

I think the question is, how much can he be an elite playmaker while not being a scoring threat? Certainly, Kidd* is kind of the model there. On the other hand, Kidd is a once-in-a-generation talent. On the gripping hand, it's been a generation since Kidd.

*Maybe Rondo too?

Rondo's scoring is pretty different than Rubio, Rondo is pretty good at the basket, but poor everywhere else, he's not even too good at the the FT line. Rubio's 34% 3pt shooting from his rookie year is significantly better than anything Rondo has done, Rondo has only topped 30% once and is 24% for his career, Rondo's offense is maybe more similar to someone like Avery Johnson but better and he's a much better defender.

Mark Jackson is another guy I thought of with a very high assist rate/mediocre scoring. His style of scoring was also pretty different as well, he could post up some and was pretty good at the basket, but in fairly low volume and his three point shooting was weak before was 30 and varied pretty heavily year to year after that. He was a good rebounder, but not as good a defender as Rondo/Kidd/Rubio.

Rondo is basically the guard version of Josh Smith . I was rooting for Smith + Rondo just to see a fan base go completely insane, would have been hilarious on the Pistons too with Drummond's Free throw, they might set a record for worst free throw season . (and what's worse is that they'll have a huge amount of attempts.)

granted, his impact on offense, at least according to on / off RAPM, seems to be very significant. but still held down by the fact the he can't really shoot.

interestingly though, RAPM isn't high on Rondo's D at all, it'll be interesting to see next year, it'll be the first time in his entire career where he wasn't flanked by at least 1 hall of fame player, and would hopefully answer a lot of questions.

But yeah, Billups and Kidd are very adept comp for Rubio, Kidd especially in the term of how they even move around, if you just switch their head it looks exactly the same.

Weird story, Terrence Jones, the 18th pick a draft ago and the presumed Rocket starting 4 next year, was arrested for some weird misdemeanor involving kicking a homeless man or something. doesn't sound too serious, but never good to see.

LeBron James is seriously considering running for president of the National Basketball players' association, multiple sources told ESPN.

James is giving a run "some very heavy thought," according to sources.

The biggest consideration for James will be the time commitment being the union president would require. James has limited time to give because of sponsorship and charity commitments in addition to playing. Deep playoff runs with the Miami Heat for the last three years have also been taxing.

I am sure LeBron has mixed reasons for wanting to be the pres of the players' association but even so it's remarkable to me that a great player would even have interest in it. Maybe I'm too jaded by Jordan's total lack of interest in anything collective, but if LeBron is really willing to do this, it reveals something fascinating about his character.

Patrick Ewing was Pres in the 1990s; according to the piece, he was the last high-profile player to run the Union. Chris Paul was VP of the current iteration of the union during the lockout IIRC; maybe he still is.

Simmons wrote at length about the 1964 All-Star game strike threat in TBOB, which was according to many the seminal moment for the NBAPA and legitimized it. Tom Heinsohn was a key figure in that, as I recall.

I wonder, though, if you're a rank and file guy, do you want LeBron James trying to represent you? I'm not making the slightest insinuation against him personally, I'm sure he'd try his best to consider everyone's concerns, but he is in such a different situation than literally everyone else in the league for so many reasons, he would have to have one hell of an ability to empathize.

All other things being equal, you would think it would be, well, a Derek Fisher type. BTW, I thought wresting the union away from Billy Hunter was supposed to be why Fisher needed to be on a team. Now OKC has even less excuse...

I wonder, though, if you're a rank and file guy, do you want LeBron James trying to represent you? I'm not making the slightest insinuation against him personally, I'm sure he'd try his best to consider everyone's concerns, but he is in such a different situation than literally everyone else in the league for so many reasons, he would have to have one hell of an ability to empathize.

You want insinuation, how about he's only "considering" the job for the positive PR but doesn't really plan on taking on the extra work. I saw that somewhere.

---

I have to go on record as saying while I don't think it was a bad deal for the Pistons to get Jennings and pay him what they did. And while I see the points guys like Pelton, Lowe, etc are making, but I still don't like the move. The bottom of the East is so bad, I guess the Pistons have as good of a shot as anyone as getting to the 8th seed but I don't see the point (or much of a ceiling beyond that). Perhaps my well documented anti-Jennings bias is at work here, but I didn't like them before this move either.

LeBron has always struck me as smart, even if he hasn't been media-savvy in the past. I don't have any evidence at my fingers -- am I wrong in this assumption?

All of the profiles I saw about LeBron in the aftermath of the Heat's first title talked about what a smart, analytical guy he is. How he pores over video and information in a way few players do, and how underrated his brain is in what makes him great. I don't know if he's politically adept in the ways you'd want an NBPA President to be, but he certainly is no dummy.

How long is the current cba good for? Having a guy like Lebron heading them up next time round could help stop the Union from being trucked like it has been in the past

IIRC, there is an opt-out after 2017. The new TV deal will be done by then, so the financial landscape should look fairly sunny. Look for the owners to start making up BS reasons for why they can't make money in early 2016.

robin, I gotta tell ya. On your recommendation, I bought Simmons' book. And I find it unreadable. There's way too much pop culture analogy BS in there. Way, way, way too much. The guy is so clearly afflicted with ADHD, he can't sustain a narrative for more than two sentences without jumping to a Saved By The Bell or porn star reference. It's really, really annoying. And he doesn't just footnote them. Some are in the body of the text. And most are really inane. 10 years from now, nobody will know what the hell he is talking about. Hell, half the readers right now don't know what the hell they mean.

And he says some incredibly stupid ####. Like, he speculates that blocked shots were harder to come by in the sixties because the ball was taken to the rim more often!! ####, that's when blocked shots are the easiest, when the shotblocker is challenged!

For a person who is supposed to understand basketball, he comes off like an incredible dumbbell. I get the impression he never played organized ball, even in CYO or rec league. So he doesn't understand any of the fundamentals and doesn't get why certain things happen the way they do, what the purpose of zone traps are and things like that.

I just can't read the effin thing and am annoyed so many people think it is a good book.

At some point in the season next year, the Heat are going to have 4 guys who were picked in the top-5 of the NBA draft. I think the early to mid 1980s Lakers did this as well (KAJ, Magic, McAdoo, and Worhty.) Has that ever happened other than those two instances?

If Oden and Birdman can combine to give them 3000 minutes next year, the Heat could make a run at 70 wins.

At some point in the season next year, the Heat are going to have 4 guys who were picked in the top-5 of the NBA draft. I think the early to mid 1980s Lakers did this as well (KAJ, Magic, McAdoo, and Worhty.) Has that ever happened other than those two instances?

Just off the top of my head, the 2011-12 Timberwolves had five: Beasley, Love, Rubio, Wesley Johnson and Derrick Williams.

I really hope Greg Oden is able to overcome his injury issues and fashion some sort of career. Also, I think the contract is a no-brainer, but if he plays well or is able to stay reasonably healthy, as slim as the odds may be, this is the type of the move that could really change MIA's long term picture in terms of LeBron's thought process on how competitive they project to be in the long-term.

At some point in the season next year, the Heat are going to have 4 guys who were picked in the top-5 of the NBA draft. I think the early to mid 1980s Lakers did this as well (KAJ, Magic, McAdoo, and Worhty.) Has that ever happened other than those two instances?

I really hope Greg Oden is able to overcome his injury issues and fashion some sort of career. Also, I think the contract is a no-brainer, but if he plays well or is able to stay reasonably healthy, as slim as the odds may be, this is the type of the move that could really change MIA's long term picture in terms of LeBron's thought process on how competitive they project to be in the long-term.

Yes, I agree. For Miami, this is a great move because it's one of the few moves that has a potential upside for improving their team. Oden doesn't need a lot of touches, and he fits in perfectly with MIA. If Oden can give them 15 minutes a night, they can be an even more destructive small lineup.

Last year's Wizards had 7 top 7 picks - Wall, Beal, Okafor, Nene, Webster, Livingston, Vesely. I think Livingston is the only one of those who's gone, and Porter replaces him. Wall, Beal, Porter and Okafor were all in the top 5.

Yeah, the thing about Kareem, Magic, Worthy and McAdoo is that they were all good :) It's presumably more common that a bad team takes some chances on Darko types than that a team is so good that it can get four of what should theoretically be among the very best players in the league together at once. (And I suppose giving a shot to a guy who at least looked great at some point is not the worst strategy in the world for a bad team, although the Pirates tried the analogous sort of thing in baseball a couple of years back and it went absolutely nowhere.)

A bad team that just misses is the 1986-87 and 1987-88 Knicks, with Ewing (1st), Cartwright (3rd), Kenny Walker (5th) and Trent Tucker (6th).

The 1994-95 Sonics pull it off while actually being a very good team -- Payton (2nd), Cartwright (3rd), Perkins (4th), Gill (5th).

Not to depress anybody, but the '86-'87 Celtics should have had Walton (1st), Bias (2nd), McHale (3rd), Bird (6th), Wedman (6th) and Parish (8th).

Still intrigued by the "lots of high picks on one team" thing. One thing that seems to happen less often than I would have expected is that a team gets there by simply stinking year after year. I guess it's a combination of A) you can stink and still not have a great pick given sufficiently bad luck, B) the draft is of course designed to help you not stink year after year, and C) if you do stink year after year, you'll probably blame either the draft flops or the one decent player you drafted who is trying to drag their carcasses around, and respond by getting rid of somebody.

The 1996-97 Mavericks got Jim Jackson (4th), Mashburn (4th) and Kidd (2nd) due to continued ineptitude, and also employed Shawn Bradley (2nd), but it's pretty much cheating to count them, because Jackson was traded for Bradley... by which point the other two had already been traded. Who was running this (horrendous, 24-58) team??? I definitely did not appreciate at the time how crazy this was. All three of these guys were traded midseason, in three separate deals that nonetheless were only a few weeks apart. That sounds like not even having the slightest bit of a plan other than "I hate this team."

The 1996-97 Mavericks got Jim Jackson (4th), Mashburn (4th) and Kidd (2nd) due to continued ineptitude, and also employed Shawn Bradley (2nd), but it's pretty much cheating to count them, because Jackson was traded for Bradley... by which point the other two had already been traded. Who was running this (horrendous, 24-58) team??? I definitely did not appreciate at the time how crazy this was. All three of these guys were traded midseason, in three separate deals that nonetheless were only a few weeks apart. That sounds like not even having the slightest bit of a plan other than "I hate this team."

Sharman: Those teams had other guys, notably Jones and Havlicek, who did some of the same things as time went on, except maybe better (Publius would be the guy to ask) and they did them after basketball on TV got really big.

Missed this when it was first written.

Sharman did two things really, really well, and both complimented Cousy. He played really effective on the ball defense, sparing Cousy from having to guard the other teams go to guy, and he could really, really shoot (check out his FT% some time. They're eye popping). But he kind of small for a two, didn't handle the ball all that well and he wasn't good playmaker. He wasn't the player either Jones or Havlicek was but he was the kind of guy who could help you win. In today's game, he would be similar to somebody like Mark Price, except better defense but worse playmaking.

Little know fact. In the off-season, he was playing baseball in the Dodgers organization as an outfielder. He probably could have made it if he was in another organization because it looks like he could hit (.294 .342 .470 in AA his last full year). But he got off to a late start and was splitting time with basketball so...

Hey all - back after a week vacation and a week in London for work - catching up on the last 500 or so posts. Still a bunch to go, but couldn't help chiming in on how much I'm enjoying the top 50 discussion. Great stuff all around.

rr - Bird as a stretch 4 in today's game is spot on and made me think about how his numbers might look if we transported him forward. Yeah, he'd still be slow, but maybe they'd be able to do more to keep him healthy. He'd still have the shot, and while he wouldn't rebound as much, he'd be able to just hang in the high post and in the corners, making jumpers and setting other guys up. I settled on 19/9/7 at his peak (rather than 27/10/7).

Who was running this (horrendous, 24-58) team??? I definitely did not appreciate at the time how crazy this was. All three of these guys were traded midseason, in three separate deals that nonetheless were only a few weeks apart. That sounds like not even having the slightest bit of a plan other than "I hate this team."

Who else but Nellie?

I think the Kidd trade must have been the Braxton thing because that actually happened a couple of months before they hired Nellie in midseason. But you didn't need to trade *everyone* to resolve that love triangle (quadrangle?) That seemed to mostly be about Nellie in fact hating the team.

In today's game, he would be similar to somebody like Mark Price, except better defense but worse playmaking.

Wouldn't someone like JJ Redick be a better comp? Maybe going back a few years, Steve Kerr (with better D)? Sharman is certainly the kind of player Biff Tannen could kidnap right out of 1955, head straight to a 2015 NBA arena, and he'd be a fine addition to any team running off screens and popping 3 pointers.

I suspect the Clippers at certain points had 4-5 former top 5 picks playing for 30-52 teams. Probably not uncommon at all. If, as a total guess, the average career length of a top 5 pick is 10 years, then you'd have 50 of them around in any given season.

#1 Wall, #3 Beal, #4 Shaun Livingston, #2 Okafor. Vesely and Nene were just out of the top 5. Mr. Livingston, I presume, will not be on the 2013-14 team. But they are adding another #3 in Otto Porter.

This exercise shows:
1. How many top 5 players have forgetable careers
2. How having top 5 picks in multiple drafts is no guarantee of success
3. If we can quickly come up with examples of bad teams with 4-5 top 5 picks, a comprehensive study would probably find some team, somewhere, that had 7 or 8 top 5 picks on their roster at some point.

The interesting/unique thing about the Heat is that they have three top five draft picks from the same draft year (and if you believe Win Shares, the top three players from that draft year; obviously there's an interesting argument about which of Anthony/Wade/Bosh are really more valuable.)

I'm sure the Bulls of the early-mid 2000's are on that multiple top pick team. They didn't have all these guys at the same time, but all of Brand, Fizer, Curry, Chandler, and Williams were top 4. Then you have Thomas and Rose later in the decade. Not to mention all the other top 10s in there - Crawford, Hinrich, Deng, Noah. And all of those guys where their picks (or in the case of Chandler, Crawford, Thomas and Noah - picks made for them if not technically by them). They also signed/traded for guys like Mercer, Sweetney, etc.

There's an ad for a local Subaru dealership that airs in the movie theaters all the time (Subaru being the Official Automobile of Boulder). It features a bunch of people saying things like "My Subaru takes my kids to school" or "me to the gym," etc. The last person in the ad is George Karl, who's standing in front of the Pepsi Center, saying, "My Subaru takes me to my office."

The ad's been running for about a year now, and it's still running today. You probably don't want to end your Subaru commercial on an inadvertent note of existential sadness.

Shaq: He is a good example of why for me personally, ranking exercises work better if you separate peak and career. Looking at his entire career arc, I do not see him as a Top 5 guy. But from 1998-2002 he was really bad news for opponents.
Draft picks: The point being made here illustrates why I am not sure that the Lakers are blowing it by not tanking. They may be, and there is an argument there, but I don't think going 37-45 and getting the 12th pick as opposed to going 24-58 and getting the 5th pick necessarily seriously screws them as some people (not here) have suggested. And, although we obviously will not know for several years, I will be interested to see if this draft really lives up to the hype.

There's an ad for a local Subaru dealership that airs in the movie theaters all the time (Subaru being the Official Automobile of Boulder). It features a bunch of people saying things like "My Subaru takes my kids to school" or "me to the gym," etc. The last person in the ad is George Karl, who's standing in front of the Pepsi Center, saying, "My Subaru takes me to my office."

The ad's been running for about a year now, and it's still running today. You probably don't want to end your Subaru commercial on an inadvertent note of existential sadness.

There was a full size billboard beside a SLC highway that featured DWill advertising some brand of watches that wasn't taken down until this spring, a full 2 years after he was traded from the Jazz.

They may be, and there is an argument there, but I don't think going 37-45 and getting the 12th pick as opposed to going 24-58 and getting the 5th pick necessarily seriously screws them as some people (not here) have suggested.

Yeah, that difference is probably not a long term killer. But what they really need is a top 3 pick. Which they certainly could even if they end up as the #9 record in the west combined with great luck (or a sound business decision by the league for conspiracy theorists).

Hard to say. A competitive record might be more attractive to 2014 free agents than a craptastic team, but then again even if competitive they'll only have Nash under contract going forward.

As to what I'd do, seeing pros and cons each way, I'd prefer to see them play competitive basketball than tank, because tanking us ugly. But if they can stockpile some draft picks by trading some players (especially Pau), then that should be strongly considered.

rr - Bird as a stretch 4 in today's game is spot on and made me think about how his numbers might look if we transported him forward. Yeah, he'd still be slow, but maybe they'd be able to do more to keep him healthy. He'd still have the shot, and while he wouldn't rebound as much, he'd be able to just hang in the high post and in the corners, making jumpers and setting other guys up. I settled on 19/9/7 at his peak (rather than 27/10/7).

About what percentage of his minutes did Bird play at PF when they had Maxwell? Or was Maxwell considered the PF? Bird was bigger and rebounded more than Maxwell. It looks like Bird put up better numbers after Maxwell was gone, but they won two of their 3 championships with Maxwell as a starter.

Maxwell sometimes seems like a forgotten piece of those 80's Celtics teams, perhaps because he was gone before the very good 86 team, but he was very good role player, who was a very efficient shooter and could defend and rebound. He seems like someone who would be more appreciated today.

These are the results of our ranking project. From now on, it will serve as the definitive ranking of the 77 best players in NBA history. As a refresher, the point system worked as 55 for first, 54 for second... 6 for 50th. The extra 5 points for each slot are a reward for inclusion on a list (so Cowens really just got one last place vote). Honorable mention was used to break ties, but the only ties occurred between players listed on every ballot. I broke those ties with the median ranking, and that resolved each tie. There were a total of 11 ballots, so 605 possible points.

Some interesting notes:

-George Mikan (27) was the highest ranked player NOT listed on each ballot. Dolph Schayes (29) was next. Both seem to have been left off due to an aversion to ranking players of a much earlier era. Patrick Ewing (31) is the highest ranked post-merger player left off of a ballot.

-Steve Nash (36) is the lowest ranked player on every ballot.

-Paul Arizin (47) is the highest ranked player to appear on less than half of the ballots.

-Adrian Dantley and Bob Cousy had noticeably low standard deviation in their rankings for players outside of the top 20. Bill Russell, David Robinson, Kobe Bryant, and John Stockton all had high standard deviations for the higher ranked players.

-James Worthy is the lowest ranked player listed on multiple ballots. He was listed 49th twice.

-Steve Nash and Walt Frazier are the only players to rank behind a player who appeared on at least 2 fewer ballots than them (John Havlicek). Nash is on 3 more ballots than Hondo, Clyde is on 2 more.

-I find all 3 ties interesting for different reasons. Lebron is often called an evolutionary Magic, and he has tied him in our rankings already. West and Robinson are not often compared, but they both had great careers without titles until they were joined by a big man past their respective primes. I was relieved that KG beat out Kobe on the tie-breaker so I didn't have to go back and make up new rules.

I sincerely hope the formatting reads well after posted and does not ruin this page. If it does, I'll put it all in the spreadsheet to view.

Just a thought if this gets published anywhere: since we were only asked to rank 50 players I'd consider anything below 50 here pretty much just noise. Also, there's a typo in Nowitzki and in Abdul-Jabbar.

About what percentage of his minutes did Bird play at PF when they had Maxwell?

Most of them. Bird was the starting PF when Maxwell was on the team. Later, when they got Wedman, he was also the PF when they were on the court together. Bird's best years were as PF, IMO.

Maxwell had a really effective, but highly incongruous, composition of skills. He handled the ball like a guard, posted like a power forward but had no jump shot at all. The few times he took an outside shot, it was a set shot and he could only make it out to about 16-17 feet.

Andrew's list. It's acually pretty good. Usually, when people make lists, there are always adjacent players where one is way better or worse than the other. But you don't se much of that on Andrew's list. You can quibble about reletive placement but usually by only a handful of slots up or down.

This has been such fun to read. I have learned a lot as a lurker. On this question

George Mikan (27) was the highest ranked player NOT listed on each ballot. Dolph Schayes (29) was next. Both seem to have been left off due to an aversion to ranking players of a much earlier era.

I can understand the dilemma. On the one hand, it's hard to resist the idea that Mikan was one of the most-valuable players ever. On the other hand, it seems pretty obvious that if matched head to head against Artis Gilmore, ranked just behind him, Mikan would just get obliterated in a way that would be unbearable to watch and possibly impact the self-esteem of his lineal descendents for generations. I didn't participate because I don't know how to reconcile those beliefs. (Incidentally I don't think that timelining stays true; Gilmore vs Ewing would be a great matchup.)

I didn't participate because I don't know how to reconcile those beliefs.

Seems fair, and I do not blame whoever left MIkan and Schayes off. That's a legitimate dilemma. I tend to look at how they did against their peers. Anything else becomes extremely speculative. The same problem exists in baseball, and it seems like the consensus is to give the Ansons and Speakers their due despite the fact that they'd be hard to translate into the present.

Seems fair, and I do not blame whoever left MIkan and Schayes off. That's a legitimate dilemma. I tend to look at how they did against their peers. Anything else becomes extremely speculative. The same problem exists in baseball, and it seems like the consensus is to give the Ansons and Speakers their due despite the fact that they'd be hard to translate into the present.

Does it seem as true in baseball? Obviously Speaker wouldn't be likely to hit .380 today but don't people assume the best players of yesteryear would still be good players today. Different players and probably not as dominant but still good. Because things like reflexes and hand-eye coordination matter more than sheer size, which has obviously changed a lot over time? The inside positions in basketball like some of the slots in football depend so much upon size and strength that it becomes harder to imagine people translating at all. There's no pitched ball mediating (and making big strong guys look ridiculous and little skinny guys look like stars because of the way they react to it.) Maybe it's just me but I can imagine Walter Johnson holding his own against Miggy, or Speaker putting up a good fight against Verlander. But with Mikan it's not just that his physical limitations would be exposed but that the game he dominated wasn't mature; it's like looking back into the 1880s in baseball. I understand why some people would rank a player from that era since they obviously had value but I wouldn't know how to handle it myself.

Ed to add: The pre-1951 stats are especially difficult because of the narrow lane. Like the messing with the pitching mound, it suggests things weren't really developed yet. With that change, his Win Shares, limited as they are as a stat, dropped from 23.4 to 14.4, though his PER still lead the league.

If we kept Mikan's narrow lane, it's not possible to really imagine Wilt or Shaq or Abdul-Jabbar's numbers.

Comparing that list to mine, the top 13 are pretty close with just a few guys mixed up (I have Duncan higher than everyone (I put him 3, no one else has him in the top 5). I am the most off in the high direction on Gervin, Lanier, Arizin, Yardley, and Iverson. Outside of AI, they're all older guys I relied more on the numbers so I think I might not have timelined as much as everyone else. The ones that jumped out where I ranked them lower were Wade, Payton, Gilmore and Mikan. So maybe I overtimelined Mikan. The one that jumps out at me the most and that I'd probably change now is Gervin; I have him too high at 26. So I may not have done my ABA conversions the same as everyone if I missed Gervin and Gilmore in opposite directions.

Andrew's list. It's acually pretty good. Usually, when people make lists, there are always adjacent players where one is way better or worse than the other. But you don't se much of that on Andrew's list. You can quibble about reletive placement but usually by only a handful of slots up or down.

Sigh. That the overall ranking compiled using all of the individual lists we posted. In fact, you already approved of berg's list at 2178.

(Incidentally I don't think that timelining stays true; Gilmore vs Ewing would be a great matchup.)

It just seems that basketball made a quantum leap sometime in the 50's, right about when they put a shot clock in and Mr. Russell introduced shotblocking. While in general the athletes of today are better, the quality of play probably was not that much worse in the 60's than today because it was such a compacted league, the talent was concentrated into 8 teams instead of 30.

As for Gilmore vs. Ewing, that happened, no timelining required. Gilmore was 36 but shot .618, scored 16.7 with 8.5 rebounds, and blocked 108 shots during Ewing's rookie year. Artis had 2 years left at that point, one as a starter.

In the first matchup that year, Ewing got 25-7 on 10-19 shooting. Gilmore 22-13 on 6-9 shooting. Spurs won. Next time the Knicks won as Patrick had 20-10 and 4 blocks, Gilmore only 10-4 on 4-6 shooting, also turned the ball over 8 times.

It just seems that basketball made a quantum leap sometime in the 50's, right about when they put a shot clock in and Mr. Russell introduced shotblocking.

This pretty much has to be the position of anyone who left Mikan off the ballot but had Russell top-10 or whatever. There's only four years between Mikan's last season and Russell's rookie year. That's not a timeline, that's an end point. (I think Hombre was explicit about this when posting his list). Personally, I don't find the quantum leap theory terribly persuasive; just perusing the All-NBA teams from the '50s, there isn't an obvious point at which the jump happens. Schayes and Cousy, for example, were All-NBA along with Mikan in the latter's final season, and were both All-NBA into the '60s alongside Russell.

The inside positions in basketball like some of the slots in football depend so much upon size and strength that it becomes harder to imagine people translating at all.

Mikan was 6'11", 245 according to basketball-reference. That's not a size that would disqualify him from playing inside in today's NBA; in fact, it's an almost exact match for B-R's listing for Tim Duncan (6'11", 248). Now, maybe Mikan is too slow or whatever, but size alone shouldn't be a problem for him.

On the other hand, the centers who dominated immediately prior to Mikan? Leroy "Cowboy" Edwards and Chuck "Tarzan" Cooper, both 6'4". It is hard to imagine a center of that height succeeding in today's NBA. Maybe they could be a Barkley-type power forward (Edwards, at least, was supposed to be a widebody), but they would probably have to alter their games a lot more than Mikan.

In the composite all-time ranking (post 2480) I do not see Elvin Hayes. I know I had him in my top 50 and I think others did too.

That's true, and I remember looking at his rankings as I went, so he must have been lost in one of the copy-pastes. I'm going to add NJ's list, fix Big E, and correct some of the typos and hopefully we'll have a finalized list this afternoon.

I agree about there being no quantum leap between the early 1950s and the late 1950s. However, what seemed to make it a cliff rather than a gradual incline was a guy named Bill Russell (followed closely by Wilt). Russell was just so much more athletic than the other big guys in the league that he dominated for several years. It took the NBA about 10 years to collect enough big man talent so that nobody could dominate like that again.